The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.

The result was to delete the image.

She's a professional actress and I don't know the woman personally, so how you expect me (or anyone on this site) to obtain a free image of her? Of course this image is fair use!

There's no dispute that it's fair use, but I believe that it can be replaced with a free image, and therefore fails our first fair use criterion. While it may not be possible for you to obtain a free replacement, I think it's possible somebody here can. — Chowbok ☠ 07:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

User does not think so. What makes you think you know better. Do you know whether the user have tried and how much s/he tried? Did you try? Do that and let us all know how it went. -- Irpen 07:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

All content on Wikipedia, with certain limited exceptions, needs to be freely-redistributable. If the uploader believes that this image fits within those narrowly-defined exceptions, then the burden is on him/her to demonstrate why. — Chowbok ☠ 08:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The uploader demonstrated that to the best of his abilities and you question him nevertheless. To prove him wrong, you should show that the replacement image can indeed be obtained within the reasonable effort. Since you refuse, it shows your lack of interest in improving the article's quality. The goal of Wikipedia is also to provide readers with quality content whatever low priority you personmally give to such goal. -- Irpen 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The uploader did not demonstrate it, but simply made an assertion with no argument to back it up. The goal of Wikipedia, as a matter of fact, is to provide a freely-redistributable encyclopedia. "Quality", while important, is secondary to that concern. — Chowbok ☠ 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

My observation is that "quality is secondary" assertions only come from users who do not create any quality content so I will ignore for now the Chowbok's ridiculous statement that the quality of the content matters little and address the Quadell's argument that the user pasted to several pages. I will with the same courtesy provide a standard response.

First, the Policy was recently rewritten by a narrow group of deletionists with no input from other Wikipedians. Second, even the current policy if interpreted in good faith does not forbid the image. The replacement image should reasonably convey to the reader the information about the article's subject AND be possible to obtain within the reasonable effort.

Generally, the problem is two-fold. How reasonable amount of effort would it take to get a replacement image and how reasonable is to expect that the image taken within a reasonable effort would reasonably provide the same adequate information to the reader.

To the first question the answer is it depends. Taking an image of a notable building or church located in an area that we expect to be frequented by Wikipedia editors is within reasonable effort. At the same time taking an image of the top of Everest or of the back side of the Moon is in principle possible (Pay $$$ to Roskosmos and they will take you to space). These are two extreme case where it is easy to judge whether a free picture could reasonably be created. There are lots of territory between them and each case should be judged my its own merit. How likely is for a Wikipedian with a Camera to meet a particular person in conditions where one can make a good enough photoshot (note the words good enough)? Suppose the person is accessible, like the subject is a regular college professor who walk in his university every day. Quite another case is when the subject lives quite an exclusive life (and not necessarily secluded one). Chances of meeting such person in conditions that may produce a reasonably acceptable photo are very unlikely.

Second question is how well such a picture, if taken, illustrates the article. I guess for a professor or a writer such amateur image as a replacement of a professional one, would not miss somethin critically important for the article's reader. In the end, how exactly such people look is of secondary importance. But what about the entetainers whose looks played an important role in making them notable. Does a PD mugshot of a celebrity caught drunk-driving provide an adequate information to the reader to understand the article? Of course it does not.

Of course getting the image subjects releasing their images for free would be the best solution. The proposal of organizing such campaign has been cleverly floated at Chowbok's RfC. Perhaps we will start getting more such approvals if this becomes an organized effort. However, for the cases where no such image is available, the fair use publicity images are irreplaceable. -- Irpen 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I actually said quality was "important", which is the opposite of "matters little". It's just that in a conflict between quality and freedom, freedom wins, that's all. I wish you would actually look at my user page or edit history and stop with these disparaging remarks about my contributions. — Chowbok ☠ 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a side issue but out of curiousity I would be happy to review articles that you contributed to a degree that makes you proud of them. I randomly clicked at several and all I saw were short sub-like articles but I might have had a bad luck. I looked at your edit history as well and all i see is the hudge effort to deplete Wikipedia of the content by wonton-tagging images.

In any case, I stand by that "quality is secondary" argument is ridiculous. Moreover, it is a spit in the face of editors who contribute hours of their time to make it a quality encyclopedia.

But anyway, the discussion here is about the image replaceability. I strongly encourage you to come up with a suggested free image and we will all discuss whether it would make an adequate replacement. -- Irpen 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• General comment, not necessarily bearing on this particular image. The argument that "First, the Policy was recently rewritten by a narrow group of deletionists with no input from other Wikipedians..." doesn't wash - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok#Outside view by Jimbo Wales. The assertion that "quality is secondary" comes directly from the Godhead. Happy with this I am not, but there have so far been only two perfect people (Jesus and General Washington) and Jimbo ain't one of them. Don't matter. Policy is policy and must be enforced. Herostratus 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Jimbo may actually do two things and we should distinguish which of the two he is doing. For one, he may present his opinion. I this case, it is as valuable as an opinion of other respected editors but not necessarily a rule to follow. He may also act in his God-King capacity and give us his his decision that may even overule a consensus. He is totally entitled to do that from his position in the Wikimedia foundation, but he has not done so in this case. Further, I've seen Jimbo saying that in regular discussions the argument "Jimbo said" is not to be used and users should sort things out among themselves the regular way. As such, the argument about the propriety of what was happening at the policy page is valid. The problem stems from a broader one that most content writers rarely attend policy pages and Wikipedia space in general as this is not what they find an interesting activity. However, the issue here is not only the policy's being flawed but also that even within the policy in its current abused form the image is usable as explained above. -- Irpen 01:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

So if Jimbo hasn't stepped in and used his God-king powers, we go with what our policy says. And our policy is unambiguous on the matter. You call the policy "flawed", meaning you don't agree with it, but it's still our policy. The issue here is that you don't want to follow policy. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The image is within the policy as explained above. If you disagree, answer the raised points and the rationale, rather than repeat an empty statement that image is not within the policy. The argument to the contrary is given. You did not respond on the merit. -- Irpen 21:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, which iron-clad rationale am I ignoring? That "she's a professional actress and I don't know the woman personally"? Or that the "user does not think so"? Or your demonstrably false assertion that "the Policy was recently rewritten by a narrow group of deletionists"? (The policy was in place over a year ago, and has been intermittently enforced until Jimbo make it a priority recently.) You have not given any coherent argument why it would be impossible (or even ridiculously difficult) for someone to photograph this woman, or why a photograph someone takes would convey less information than this image. Because it's rather obvious that any decent headshot of this woman could replace this image, and photographing a person is not unreasonable. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.